Pletnev's Rachmaninoff Third
SG
old Mozart Sonatas LP he recorded in his 20s for Melodiya still freaks
me out, with its stiff and pretentious approach, arrrgh. Some other
performances strike me as willful, eccentric, unsincere -- not that
anybody can quantify that, surely.)
Therefore it gives me great pleasure to be able to say that finally
listening to the Rachmaninoff Third/Prokofiev Third DG CD (commented
upon some months ago by other rmcr-sters) leaves now no doubt in my
mind that Pletnev is indeed one of the (scarce) New Golden Age
pianists, if there is one, and, for what it's worth, I think his
Rachmaninoff Third is one of the three or four best versions in the
recorded canon, and surely the best version by an active pianist I
know (better than Goerner's excellent one, Lugansky's comfortable --
"pleasant promenade music" -- approach, Kissin's solid and stolidly
predictable vision, Volodos' predominantly pianistic rather than
musical approach, or even Berman/Abbado's dark, well-constructed but
also somewhat cold version, to speak of only some of the stars).
Pletnev's coupled Prokofiev Third is very good by all means, but
Rachmaninoff is out of this world. I wouldn't know where to start
praising it. It is a highly original version, unlike any other of the
many dozens I've heard, but -- as opposed to other Pletnev
interpretations -- it is not in the least (just) "interesting".
Everything derives, to my understanding, from an attentive and
exceedingly intelligent absorption of the musical text, analyzed
thoroughly and reinterpreted as if the pianist has never heard any
other interpretation (which is, of course, HIGHLY unlikely). Rostro's
accompaniment is good, but more insofar it is judiciously balanced,
not too obtrusive and it helps Pletnev project his conception, rather
than anything spectacular in itself.
That the performance will be different is obvious from the very first
bars, in which the usually heard "busy" "D F E, D F E" figure in the
accompaniment is pushed into the background while the simpler "D E,
D E" in the winds is pushed into the foreground, saving as such the
effect of the first "meaningful F" for the melodic entrance of the
piano. Pletnev's phrasing of both the first theme and the second
thematic group is simply splendid, refinedly shaped, songful, full of
Moiseiwitsch-like diminuendi and clever niceties, redolent of untold
nostalgias.
Rachmaninoff's writing in this work goes from extremely simple --
melody-only -- textures to some of the most note-filled passages in
the (traditional) literature. One of the challenges for the pianist
(which, I dare say, not even Rachmaninoff himself met ideally, in his
own work) is to *preserve the continuity of melos between one and the
other*. I can hardly think of a pianist who does that better than
Pletnev. The most complex chordal or polyphonic textures are
"clarified" and prioritized with apparent easiness, emanating from the
technical mastery of somebody for whom playing Rachmaninoff is as easy
as playing Mozart. Therefore the listener never loses the "thread",
and there is no senseless banging in one single place in the whole
piece. Marvelously, that does not translate into a lack of sound
power, but in an intelligent and always musically coherent application
of the same, on the basis of more exquisitely soft playing throughout
the piece than one is used to. Pletnev's separation of the fundamental
from the episodic is, here, second to none, in my opinion.
The musical glories of this version, both projecting the grand
structure and bringing out unheard details, are simply too many to be
counted. Just a few in the first movement: the saving of power at
8:15, where pianists usually give their utmost despite the development
having not yet reached the climax, the discrete articulation and
whispering fluidity at 13:06 (where the orchestral soloists need to be
heard!), or the turbulent and abrupt C Minor modulational inflection
at 16:52, near the end -- the music may have "retired in itself", in
the primordial D Minor, but that last harmonic excrescence seemingly
reminds the listener that this is not an accepted end, only an
armistice perhaps.
The second movement is not any less compelling -- Pletnev separates
again with remarkable fluidity the many secondary voices from the
"main thread", without banging out the tunes in way of "projecting"
them and without muddying the inner lines in way of "showing they are
secondary", either. His use of rubato, never eccentric despite
sounding quasi-improvised, is outstanding. The ending waltz-scherzo,
rather than virtuosic as usual, is strangely haunting, like the dark
ghost of a past ball, vertige of crazy love waltzes, a ball the
protagonists of which have been long buried, other than in the memory
of the auctorial voice. In the third movement I particularly liked the
last ("all weapons out") enunciation of the "anthem" theme. Again,
Pletnev's care for *maintaining shape in loudness* and for
establishing different level of FF -- soft fortissimo (sic),
intermediate fortissimo, full fortissimo etc. -- does marvels in way
of humanizing a moment which otherwise can easily sound pompous and
predictable.
I will end by saying that I find that, even in this interpretation
which I like so much, Pletnev's brains seem to govern his heart, but I
don't find the version lacking in emotional intensity and genuineness,
either. Many of us have and heard more Rachmaninoff Thirds than we
ever thought we should need but, if the piece is not completely burned
out for you -- or perhaps if you thought it was! -- this is the
performance to get and to cherish.
regards,
SG
David Hurwitz
>
>I have written not very nice things about Pletnev in the past. (The
>old Mozart Sonatas LP he recorded in his 20s for Melodiya still freaks
>me out, with its stiff and pretentious approach, arrrgh. Some other
>performances strike me as willful, eccentric, unsincere -- not that
>anybody can quantify that, surely.)
>
>Therefore it gives me great pleasure to be able to say that finally
>listening to the Rachmaninoff Third/Prokofiev Third DG CD (commented
>upon some months ago by other rmcr-sters) leaves now no doubt in my
>mind that Pletnev is indeed one of the (scarce) New Golden Age
>pianists, if there is one, and, for what it's worth, I think his
>Rachmaninoff Third is one of the three or four best versions in the
What he said.
Dave Hurwitz
Dan Koren
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:77555176.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
I beg to disagree.
This is now the one and only version that matters.
Even Rachmaninov's own does not come close.
Pletnev now owns it completely.
dk
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Well, NOT completely, and that, I am afraid, is the pity of it all.
The performance is CUT!!!!
Why has nobody mentioned the fact that Pletnev cuts the 8 bars that
even Horowitz decided to reinstate.
Of course the performance is good. (You expected bad???) Of course it
is well played. Of course it is intelligently projected.
But in one feel swoop Pletnev rendered his recording of this concerto
almost of marginal interest by eliminating a part of the score.
Unforgiveable. Both on the part of Pletnev and on the part of DG and
his producer.
Shame!
TD
john grant
"Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3fa1a3d5$1...@news.meer.net...
I'm off this very evening to purchase it.
JG
Bob Lombard
That these three people (in particular) agree on the greatness of this
performance can only mean that Pletnev has finally succeeded in
recomposing a warhorse.
bl
Mazzolata
> Well, NOT completely, and that, I am afraid, is the pity of it all.
>
> The performance is CUT!!!!
>
> Why has nobody mentioned the fact that Pletnev cuts the 8 bars that
> even Horowitz decided to reinstate.
>
> Of course the performance is good. (You expected bad???) Of course it
> is well played. Of course it is intelligently projected.
>
> But in one feel swoop Pletnev rendered his recording of this concerto
> almost of marginal interest by eliminating a part of the score.
>
> Unforgiveable. Both on the part of Pletnev and on the part of DG and
> his producer.
>
Fortunately, being unable to read music, I can listen and enjoy in
blissful ignorance.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to get behind the mule
in the morning and plow
Dan Koren
news:3FA1C036...@hotmail.com...
> deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Well, NOT completely, and that, I am afraid, is the pity of it all.
> >
> > The performance is CUT!!!!
> >
> > Why has nobody mentioned the fact that Pletnev cuts the 8 bars that
> > even Horowitz decided to reinstate.
> >
> > Of course the performance is good. (You expected bad???) Of course it
> > is well played. Of course it is intelligently projected.
> >
> > But in one feel swoop Pletnev rendered his recording of this concerto
> > almost of marginal interest by eliminating a part of the score.
> >
> > Unforgiveable. Both on the part of Pletnev and on the part of DG and
> > his producer.
> >
>
> Fortunately, being unable to read music, I can listen and enjoy in
> blissful ignorance.
>
It is unbelivable what an asshole you can be.
No one (except you) gives a shit whether the
performance is cut or not. Music performance
is not archival restoration work.
dk
Dan Koren
news:59d3qvkii8sodslka...@4ax.com...
Indeed. Take my word for it.
dk
Owen Hartnett
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Do you feel the same way about Rachmaninoff's own recording?
-Owen
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Well, NOT completely, and that, I am afraid, is the pity of it all.
>>
>> The performance is CUT!!!!
>>
>> Why has nobody mentioned the fact that Pletnev cuts the 8 bars that
>> even Horowitz decided to reinstate.
>>
>> Of course the performance is good. (You expected bad???) Of course it
>> is well played. Of course it is intelligently projected.
>>
>> But in one feel swoop Pletnev rendered his recording of this concerto
>> almost of marginal interest by eliminating a part of the score.
>>
>> Unforgiveable. Both on the part of Pletnev and on the part of DG and
>> his producer.
>>
>
>Fortunately, being unable to read music, I can listen and enjoy in
>blissful ignorance.
I, too, can enjoy it, as far as it goes.
But it is irresponsible NOT to identify this gaping hole Pletnev has
created in the score. It used to be standard, of course. The first
pianist to really reinstate it systematically was Ashkenazy, way back
in the 1960s. Rachmaninoff, Horowitz (first two versions), Gilels,
Janis, Earl Wild, and many more took this cut. But in the past 20
years few observed this cut. Until Pletnev.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>"Bob Lombard" <thor...@adelphia.net> wrote in message
Why? when your words are of such little value?
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>"Mazzolata" <mazz...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I am beginning to feel that you hadn't even noticed that this
performance was cut in the first place.
HA! Typical nonsense from the serial babbler.
TD
David Hurwitz
>It is unbelivable what an asshole you can be.
>
>No one (except you) gives a shit whether the
>performance is cut or not. Music performance
>is not archival restoration work.
>
Dan:
Be nice! Everyone knows that Tom likes it uncut. He has a right to his, er,
taste preferences.
Dave Hurwitz
Dan Koren
news:tcj3qvs1s297dv6p4...@4ax.com...
>
Couple of reasons.
First, I have a track record going back 14 years
with this audience when it comes to recommending
piano performances. In simple words, a relatively
large number of readers have concluded that when
I recommend a performance it is often very good
(according to their standards of course). Part
of it is that I do not waste anyone's time with
pedantic hair splitting about what is or not in
the urtext vs. what is or not on the keys, below
them, or in the performers trousers. And I never
recommended any recordings by Mme Strudel-Haebler.
You're welcome to google up the evidence for
yourself.
Second, the only reason for Pletnev's Rach 3
being so great is his playing, not my words.
Any idiot can figure that out.
dk
Dan Koren
> >
> > It is unbelivable what an asshole you can be.
> >
> > No one (except you) gives a shit whether the
> > performance is cut or not. Music performance
> > is not archival restoration work.
> >
>
> Dan:
>
> Be nice!
Yessir! I will enroll in prep school immediately.
Will have my grades sent directly to you, as well
as the invoice for my tuition -- you know people
ought to pay for their ideas.
> Everyone knows that Tom likes it uncut.
Well said, however one should not mix matters of
state with matters of religion in public forums.
> He has a right to his, er, taste preferences.
Sure -- but how does one taste something that's
been cut? Just curious...
dk
Dan Koren
news:tej3qv8vvrpuvkc6p...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:35:58 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > No one (except you) gives a shit whether the
> > performance is cut or not. Music performance
> > is not archival restoration work.
> >
>
> noticed that this performance was cut in the
> first place.
>
> HA! Typical nonsense from the serial babbler.
Curiouser and curiouser. You seem to be suffering
from a strange hallucination that makes you think
that anyone who does not agree with your thoughts
or does not care about the same things you claim
to care about must of necessity be uneducated or
have missed the facts.
Incidentally, this hallucination seems to be
quite widespread among the political left. In
my book it is simply abbreviated ass-holiness.
dk
Dan Koren
news:o1j3qvg3otm5vcp78...@4ax.com...
And what difference does that make ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
dk
Bob Lombard
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Urtext. Damn it Dan, you are forgetting again. Unless those 8 bars can
be considered apocrypha, excised by their creator (Rachmaninov).
bl
Owen Hartnett
<thor...@adelphia.net> wrote:
But Rachmaninoff would excise whole bleeding chunks, if someone so much
as coughed during one of them.
-Owen
SG
I beg to disagree. ( :
> Even Rachmaninov's own does not come close.
I feel the same, but then Rachmaninoff's own version of Rachmaninoff
Third (recorded when he was not far from 70, and on inherently
"fragmented" 78s) is not the very best Rachmaninoff the performer had
to offer.
> Pletnev now owns it completely.
Expressing one's preference for a performer through the "ownership"
image is a legitimate figure of style, but no performer ever owns a
piece *completely* and literally.
Thanks for being so passionate in excess, though. You make some of the
rest of us look balanced. . . ( :
regards,
SG
Dan Koren
Thanks for reminding me. My brains seem to be
going the way of Tom's.
> Unless those 8 bars can be considered apocrypha,
> excised by their creator (Rachmaninov).
How about if Pletnev is skipping them on advice
from his doctor? You know, like skiers do...
dk
SG
polemics, Pletnev uses indeed a cut, only one, at the transition
between the middle section and the reiteration of the first section in
the finale. This, of course, it's not only less of a cut than both
Malcuzinsky and some Horowitz versions expouse, but also less
drastical a decision than the one taken by *the composer himself* in
his version of the piece (and we know that Rachmaninoff was stubborn
and proud enough as to have recorded the concerto with no cut
whatsoever, if he felt like it). Pletnev performs the big cadenza in
(i) and the complete text of the movement, unlike Rachmaninoff
himself. Of course that there's nothing wrong with playing the whole
thing without cuts whatsoever, but pretending that a late 20th century
respect for the "holy text" is more legitimate or more clever than
what the composer himself was doing as a matter of free will is
ridiculous not a little.
regards,
SG
SG
nothing. The very thought that Pletnev's having operated one
traditional and composer-endorsed 8 bars cut would make any difference
-- when the composer himself has excised much more than that in his
own performance -- speaks for itself, as justified or as silly. Let
the reader make up his/her own mind. You care take a bet? Don't be so
agitated. . . ( :
Pletnev's is such an exceptional piece of interpretive work that I'd
think it wise *not* to keep stimulating (through *unnecessary* violent
"debunking") the usual non-sense until the cows come home and after.
regards,
SG
Peter Lemken
> This is now the one and only version that matters.
>
> Even Rachmaninov's own does not come close.
>
> Pletnev now owns it completely.
Owns it? You mean he owns the endless strings of artificial ritardandi, the
pump and dump dynamics to (not) come from one half-climax to the next one,
the endless non-legato wherever "transparency" would be nice or the murky
pedalling all over. Yes, he owns that.
The cadenza is about as lousy as it can get, at least for thos who can read
a score. He misses around 80% of the score's dynamic and tempo indications.
I have never understood the hype around Pletnev, having heard him in
concert a couple of times (including the most boring Tchaikovsky 2nd there
ever was; no wonder this piece is so dramatically underrated, given its
interpretation history) and know most of his recordings.
Compared to his Paganini Rhapsody and 1st Piano Concerto on Virgin, this
Rachmaninoff 3rd is painful to listen to, in particular with versions like
the one by Volodos being available.
Peter Lemken
Berlin
--
Mail an die im From: angegebene Adresse stellt eine Beauftragung zur
Überprüfung der Mailfunktion des Absenders dar und wird mit einer
Bearbeitungsgebühr von EUR 1000,- in Rechnung gestellt.
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Actually, Owen, I almost never listen to it and for that very reason.
Rachmaninoff was notoriously critical of his own work and often
shredded it to make it more palatable.
But since the early 1960s this concerto is played intact and it should
remain that way.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
It means - my goodness you do appear quite thick today - that the
piece should be played as it was written.
It would be hard for you to state that Pletnev should have included
these 8 bars. What did it cost him? Why did he cut them?
So silly.
His version is now, in my opinion, marginalized as a result.
But you know, perhaps DG has those bars in the unedited take. In any
event I shall ask the producer, whom I know, how it came about.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I will, of course, quite willingly match my own accomplishments with
yours - whatever they are, of course.
Your "track record", from what I have seen, is strewn with
ill-tempered, ill-considered, and extremely questionable suggestions.
If other sheep like to follow the shepherd, by all means let them. But
I would advise you not to allow that to go to your head.
>Second, the only reason for Pletnev's Rach 3
>being so great is his playing, not my words.
>
>Any idiot can figure that out.
Indeed. Which makes it all the more amazing that you managed to.
Of course Pletnev plays the piano well. It is obvious.
My question is a simple one: why has he ruined the Rachmaninoff 3 by
cutting 8 bars? Because he felt like it? Who the hell does he think he
is? Rachmaninoff?
Your answer is still awaited.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:tej3qv8vvrpuvkc6p...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 02:35:58 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > No one (except you) gives a shit whether the
>> > performance is cut or not. Music performance
>> > is not archival restoration work.
>> >
>>
>> I am beginning to feel that you hadn't even
>> noticed that this performance was cut in the
>> first place.
>>
>> HA! Typical nonsense from the serial babbler.
>
>
>Curiouser and curiouser. You seem to be suffering
>from a strange hallucination that makes you think
>that anyone who does not agree with your thoughts
>or does not care about the same things you claim
>to care about must of necessity be uneducated or
>have missed the facts.
>
>Incidentally, this hallucination seems to be
>quite widespread among the political left. In
>my book it is simply abbreviated ass-holiness.
I take that to be a non-denial denial.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
Nobody has suggested "holy text".
The cut you mention has, for decades now, since Ashkenazy, in fact,
been restored, even by Horowitz, who plays those 8 bars better than
Pletnev will ever play the whole concerto. In my opinion, of course.
There are precedents for cutting this concerto, and Rachmaninoff's is
one of them. However, when I asked Jorge Bolet many years ago - Bolet
heard Rachmaninoff play this piece often - whether or nor the composer
too all the cuts in his recording in concert, he replied in the
negative. I was much relieved. Presumably for the recording he bowed
to pressure to "keep it short".
In this sense I regard the Rachmaninoff recording as something of a
curse on this piece, as it sanctions wholesale cuts in the score -
curious that Pletnev didn't follow them all, if he was so keen on
following Rachmaninoff's example! - which leads pianists of limited
musical intelligence to follow his example.
Horowitz, not the smartest pianist in the world, ended up by seeing
the light and restoring the concerto to its full, luxuriant glory.
What a pity that Pletnev did not.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>Dan Koren <dank...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> This is now the one and only version that matters.
>>
>> Even Rachmaninov's own does not come close.
>>
>> Pletnev now owns it completely.
>
>Owns it? You mean he owns the endless strings of artificial ritardandi, the
>pump and dump dynamics to (not) come from one half-climax to the next one,
>the endless non-legato wherever "transparency" would be nice or the murky
>pedalling all over. Yes, he owns that.
>
>The cadenza is about as lousy as it can get, at least for thos who can read
>a score. He misses around 80% of the score's dynamic and tempo indications.
>
>I have never understood the hype around Pletnev, having heard him in
>concert a couple of times (including the most boring Tchaikovsky 2nd there
>ever was; no wonder this piece is so dramatically underrated, given its
>interpretation history) and know most of his recordings.
>
>Compared to his Paganini Rhapsody and 1st Piano Concerto on Virgin, this
>Rachmaninoff 3rd is painful to listen to, in particular with versions like
>the one by Volodos being available.
Here you go too far. The Volodos version has each and every note
highlighted in neon for all of us to hear and enjoy. Unfortunately
Volodos doesn't have the intelligence to discern which notes are
intended to be heard and which ones only vaguely hinted at.
Certainly Pletnev is a cut above Volodos.
But neither of them comes even close to the electricity and dash and
daring of Martha Argerich. And she didn't even have the luxury of a
retake!
You are right to question Pletnev's "ownership", the idea of which is
about as gross as most of Koren's opinions, but if you are going to
make substitutions, you can find better examples than the one you
picked.
TD
Peter Lemken
> On 31 Oct 2003 10:41:26 GMT, spam.f...@buerotiger.de (Peter Lemken)
> wrote:
> >
> >Owns it? You mean he owns the endless strings of artificial ritardandi, the
> >pump and dump dynamics to (not) come from one half-climax to the next one,
> >the endless non-legato wherever "transparency" would be nice or the murky
> >pedalling all over. Yes, he owns that.
> >
> >The cadenza is about as lousy as it can get, at least for thos who can read
> >a score. He misses around 80% of the score's dynamic and tempo indications.
> >
> >I have never understood the hype around Pletnev, having heard him in
> >concert a couple of times (including the most boring Tchaikovsky 2nd there
> >ever was; no wonder this piece is so dramatically underrated, given its
> >interpretation history) and know most of his recordings.
> >
> >Compared to his Paganini Rhapsody and 1st Piano Concerto on Virgin, this
> >Rachmaninoff 3rd is painful to listen to, in particular with versions like
> >the one by Volodos being available.
>
> Here you go too far. The Volodos version has each and every note
> highlighted in neon for all of us to hear and enjoy. Unfortunately
> Volodos doesn't have the intelligence to discern which notes are
> intended to be heard and which ones only vaguely hinted at.
I will be delighted to read your thorough analysis and follow Volodos'
recordings with the score in hand and your comments in mind.
However, I strongly defy your statements regarding Volodod' intelligence in
this particular instance. Rachmaninoff's piano texture, which at times can
be called thick and difficult to hear through, comes along in form of a
score that is full of dynamic markings, tempo indications and emphasized
interior melody lines. His immensely precise notation should be the basis
for any interpretation and you can hardly find fault with a pianist who
follows these guidelines a lot more than others do. To blame Volodos for
following the score casts a rather interesting shadow on your own
"interpretation" of what a score should sound like.
I'd rather have Volodos play notes that are intended to be heard than others
not even vaguely hinting at them like Pletnev, who completely ignores the
score. I know, it's a phenomenon of today's music industry to single out
those performers with an "interesting" view of the score, but I'd rather
have performer who *master* the score and *then* make it interesting instead
of skipping step one.
> Certainly Pletnev is a cut above Volodos.
In what sense? Would you care to get a little more specific, in particular,
would you care to take my comments with regards to the cadenza and point
out to me in detail, what it is that makes Pletnev such an obvious cut above
Volodos? Certainly not his piano sound.
> But neither of them comes even close to the electricity and dash and
> daring of Martha Argerich. And she didn't even have the luxury of a
> retake!
I find Argerich's version about the fastest, most brilliant, sweeping and
dramatic versions around. Unfortunately, there is only little Rachmaninoff
left in the end.
> You are right to question Pletnev's "ownership", the idea of which is
> about as gross as most of Koren's opinions, but if you are going to
> make substitutions, you can find better examples than the one you
> picked.
I picked that example for the simple reason that it is a recent recording.
I am not here to show you how intimately familiar I am with that piece and
the existing recordings of it, but you can safely assume that I am.
David Wake
What when the author of the work himself does not "play as it it written"?
David
David Wake
Ian Pace
"Peter Lemken" <spam.f...@buerotiger.de> wrote in message
news:bntvo6$1527pb$1...@ID-31.news.uni-berlin.de...
up a bit much for my taste sometimes, but he has such stores of both
brilliance and control as to make the performance riveting. His first
movement cadenza, using the shorter and simpler (in a technical sense)
version, is more breathtaking to me than a lot of pianists' performances of
the longer cadenza. The way he differentiates parts in different registers
by articulation, voicing and sense of line, sounding almost like two
pianists playing simultaneously, is totally electrifying. Not for Wild
perhaps the melancholy, dark-hued reading of the work, combining deep
tenderness and humanity with a worldly pessimism, that the composer and
others communicate, but still a recording that gets my attention.
Best,
Ian
Peter Lemken
[...]
> Is anyone else fond of the Wild/Horenstein recording of this?
You quote my article (with all the gruesome kaput quoting of Outlook
Express), only to ask about something completely different and unrelated.
Does that make any sense to you? To me, it doesn't.
Ian Pace
> Ian Pace <i...@ianpace.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Is anyone else fond of the Wild/Horenstein recording of this?
>
> You quote my article (with all the gruesome kaput quoting of Outlook
> Express), only to ask about something completely different and unrelated.
>
> Does that make any sense to you? To me, it doesn't.
>
>
of the Rachmaninoff Third, which has discussed various other recordings (the
composer, Argerich, Volodos, etc.), that an interest in what people think of
another alternative was such a great crime! These threads pursue on in all
sorts of directions, sometimes it seems the natural thing to do to reply to
the most recent post.
Ian
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You are right, Ian. Wild's reading of the score is superb. I do
believe, however, that since he, too, has cut the score mercilessly,
his reading cannot really be recommended as a first choice.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
And you can safely assume that I have more than a passing knowledge of
this score as well.
The Volodos performance - which I also heard in Amsterdam - is
expertly played. Of course. But the desire to make each
hemidemisemiquaver in this richly textured score heard with the
clarity of a single bell is a silly one. Even a cursory listen to
Rachmaninoff's own way with the score would show you that.
The "neon" effect may satisfy those who really do want to hear all
those notes, but it does not satisfy me. I prefer to hear the rich
texture of the music rather than individual notes. The music seems to
me very much reduced in Volodos' effort to make everything heard. This
would seem to me to be a perfect example of the musician who cannot
tell the forest for the trees!
Pletnev is a "cut above Volodos" in that he DOES know how to subdue
some elements of the music in favour of other more important ones. I
would have thought this was kind of basic, but perhaps not.
You say there is little Rachmaninoff left in Argerich's reading of
this score. I don't quite understand what aspect of Rachmaninoff's
score you are referring to? Perhaps you should be more clear.
Otherwise it is just a cute comment without meaning.
TD
Owen Hartnett
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Actually, Owen, I almost never listen to it and for that very reason.
> Rachmaninoff was notoriously critical of his own work and often
> shredded it to make it more palatable.
>
> But since the early 1960s this concerto is played intact and it should
> remain that way.
I grant you then the consistency of your opinions, although the
timeline you impose seems curious. Should performers be limited by
"generally accepted" modern practices? It brings to mind something
like 'all Bach should now be played on the piano,' or the like.
-Owen
Matthew B. Tepper
the following letters to be typed in
news:9nism5l...@Turing.Stanford.EDU:
> What when the author of the work himself does not "play as it it
> written"?
I am amazed at the freedom that Bartok, for example, took with some of his
own piano music, considering his reputation for super-fussiness.
--
Matthew B. Tepper: WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!
My personal home page -- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/index.html
My main music page --- http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/berlioz.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
War is Peace. ** Freedom is Slavery. ** It's all Napster's Fault!
Ian Pace
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kr35qvsv3d0uqdp38...@4ax.com...
central Eb section in the last movement feel like padding to me, highly
elegantly written, but somewhat calling into question the work's sense of
proportion (in such a way that the big melodic reprise and virtuoso ending
sound a little contrived, clearly taking as their model the generic
conventions in the Tchaikovsky Bb minor concerto and Rachmaninoff's own
Second Concerto, not to mention some other works). For all its brilliance,
and the wondrousness of the slow movement, I don't find the work as strong
as the Fourth Concerto, say, where Rachmaninoff's writing attains a higher
level of refinement. So, to cut or not to cut? There are players that can
maintain the sense of purpose without cutting anything (Bolet does this
rather well, only making a two-bar cut at the end of the first movement
cadenza), but when a player does cut some bits, certainly isn't a big
problem for me. The composer's own cuttings are drastic, though, seem as if
they were decided upon in one of his depressive moments of intense
self-doubt (just as the cuts in the later version of the Second Piano Sonata
are clumsy and untenable). Maybe just heard this work one time too many -
but maybe also time to dig out the Gieseking/Mengelberg recording for
another whirl.
Best,
Ian
XYZ XYZ
and listened to it. I liked it very much, actually. But then, who am
I to say? Compared to most of the people on this newsgroup, I've listened
to fairly little. What do the rmcrers think about the Wild/Horenstein
combination?
For callibration purposes, I've yet to warm up to Richter's No. 2. I
listened to snippets of Pletnev's No. 3 on a Tower listening station. If
I recall, the initial reaction on rmcr was a little more mixed than SG's
glowing review, so I didn't buy it. Rachmaninoff isn't high on my list
of things to buy these days, but if I wanted another recording of No. 2,
I'd consider getting the Wild/Horenstein. As far as No. 3 is concerned,
I haven't listened to it in months, but maybe I'll take out some of the
ones I have and listen when I've the chance.
" Ian Pace" <i...@ianpace.com> wrote in message news:<bnu0rc$1663m5$1...@ID-209093.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> Is anyone else fond of the Wild/Horenstein recording of this?
> Best,
> Ian
Dan Koren
news:vcn4qvkv9u0qn23ls...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 03:38:02 GMT, "Dan Koren" <dank...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > And what difference does that make ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
>
Not anywhere as thick as you are, my dear Deacon.
> that the piece should be played as it was written.
"Should"?
What the *FUCK* does "SHOULD" mean?
Are you telling Pletnev how to play it? Or are you
telling Slava how to conduct it? Or are you telling
the rest of the world how to listen to it? Why don't
you get it through your pumpkin that your opinion is
just that -- an opinion?
Rachmaninov and others made all kinds of cuts in
their performances of this concerto -- including
this one. And who cares? It's the results that
matter, not the process.
Get real -- and get off your high horse. No one
needs anothe urtext policeman -- there are too
many already.
> It would be hard for you to state that Pletnev
> should have included these 8 bars.
Not at all. I just don't care. Can you get that?
I don't count the bars. I don't give a shit about
the urtext -- not to mention the fact that in this
case there are so many versions of the work that
it is almost besides the point which of them one
plays.
> What did it cost him? Why did he cut them?
Doesn't matter. It is his conception of the work.
If you like to promote a different one, feel free
to walk on the podium and perform it. Otherwise,
shut up.
> So silly.
Entirely on your side.
> His version is now, in my opinion, marginalized
> as a result.
Not any more than your opinions. In fact, I'd be
willing to bet DG will sell a lot more copies of
this recordings than you can sell of your opinions.
It's time to come to terms with the fact that the
only measure of success is success -- not any kind
of hypothetical, theoretical rightness.
> But you know, perhaps DG has those bars in the
> unedited take. In any event I shall ask the
> producer, whom I know, how it came about.
Ask to your heart's content -- but who the *FUCK*
cares about your opinions anyway?
dk
Dan Koren
news:t8n4qvssu73ts5mdb...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 21:41:07 -0500, Owen Hartnett <
>
> intact and it should remain that way.
>
Hey Deacon,
Music does not need policemen.
Go back to your dungeon and
eat the fucking urtext.
dk
Peter Lemken
> And you can safely assume that I have more than a passing knowledge of
> this score as well.
Fine.
|I will be delighted to read your thorough analysis and follow Volodos'
|recordings with the score in hand and your comments in mind.
Here is your tune. Chime in.
And another one:
|In what sense? Would you care to get a little more specific, in particular,
|would you care to take my comments with regards to the cadenza and point
|out to me in detail, what it is that makes Pletnev such an obvious cut
|above Volodos?
I am eagerly awaiting your analysis, honestly.
SG
the case of Rachmaninoff especially, who liked and endorsed
performances of his own concerto as different between themselves and
from his own as Horowitz's and Gieseking's. There's nothing more
amusing than the satisfaction of a self-important listener -- who
notes that a pianist uses unspecified (but derived entirely from the
inner workings of the musical language rather than from an explicitly
worded score) rubato, or plays piano instead of a fortisissimo -- and
thinks that he, the score-possessing Professional Listener, discovered
the Holy Grail.
Of course that judging with this petty criteria, Rachmaninoff was a
lousy pianist himself -- after all his interpretation of Troika (from
The Seasons) is extraordinarily "distorted" rhythmically, and --
imagine that!!! -- he could substitute a FFF for pp in Chopin,
probably the definitive proof that, unlike the many armchair analysts,
the poor Rachmaninoff "couldn't read a score". (The idea that pianists
such as Rachmaninoff or Pletnev can do anything they want in their
music and choose -- and that even when one doesn't like something, it
is the pianists' choices, not their limitations -- doesn't cross some
minds -- oh, well.)
Well, it's not like everybody has to like this Rachmaninoff 3rd.
Pletnev doesn't "own" it, and for other parameters of the work than
the compositional ones -- parameters such as "the record number of
pitches one can machine-gun with unhierarchized clarity in a given
space" -- there are other pianists who do better.
By the way, Pletnev does offer *one* absolutely compelling, sonority-
and effect-wise climax in (i), at ~12:30. Not unlike Rachmaninoff's
own interpretive aesthetics, one could say -- aspiring toward *one*
true Ho[e]hepunkt. Thanks be to God, Pletnev indeed avoids the kind of
inflationary loud playing which makes to me certain very good Russian
pianists the Kings of the Yawn -- the type of pianist who substitutes
piano playing for finger pushups and other fitness extravaganzas, the
pianist whose dynamic "sea level" of playing is forte and up -- you
see, being "Rrrusian" is being loud, he needs to suffer, he is
irremediably "intense" -- , so the only option in order to build up
something is to go from sempre loud to immer louder. Anything goes to
impress a by then aurally anesthetized audience, which could get a
similar thrill from attending some heavy metal show.
Chacun a son gout, but let's forget the sanctimonious pretenses of
reading the Rachmaninoff Third score better than Pletnev. Pletnev also
conducted it, so he knows it in similar detail from both perspectives,
the piano part and the orchestral one, and thus understands -- with
the ears of the all-rounded musician rather than those of the new
Wunderpianist in the parking lot -- when a different-than-usual
approach to the piano part can illuminate important orchestral detail,
rather than being obsessed with always putting the piano, qua
instrument, in the brightest of lights.
regards,
SG
bb
Dan Koren
news:a5a0603e.03103...@posting.google.com...
>
> (The idea that pianists such as Rachmaninoff or
> Pletnev can do anything they want in their music
> and choose -- and that even when one doesn't like
> something, it is the pianists' choices, not their
> limitations -- doesn't cross some minds -- oh, well.)
>
For ideas to cross one's mind, one needs to have one.
Needless to say, the urtext police picks its members
precisely because they don't have a mind -- thinking
might get in the way of their getting the job done.
dk
David Hurwitz
>Nobody has suggested "holy text".
>
>The cut you mention has, for decades now, since Ashkenazy, in fact,
>been restored, even by Horowitz, who plays those 8 bars better than
>Pletnev will ever play the whole concerto. In my opinion, of course.
So what? Perhaps Pletnev's recording signals a return to the happy days of
Romantic pianism when artists made cuts as pleased them. You may try to argue
that the cut has some musically detrimental effect on the work, although you
haven't because you can't, but simply to say "this is what everyone does now" is
a truism. It is not evidence of anything other than a new performance tradition
supplanting an older one. It has no artistic or aesthetic value at all.
>
>There are precedents for cutting this concerto, and Rachmaninoff's is
>one of them. However, when I asked Jorge Bolet many years ago - Bolet
>heard Rachmaninoff play this piece often - whether or nor the composer
>too all the cuts in his recording in concert, he replied in the
>negative. I was much relieved. Presumably for the recording he bowed
>to pressure to "keep it short".
As usual, your conclusions do not flow from your premises. The fact is that we
don't know what factors led Rachmaninov to choose what cuts to make on various
occasions, and neither, evidently, did Bolet. Indeed, unlike say, Mr. Lemkin,
who has the musical foundation and knowledge to take issue with Pletnev's
performance on purely musical grounds, I see little here other than the usual
posturing and self-serving tactic of attempting to make your points not by logic
or rational discussion of the performance or music at hand, but by
name-dropping.
>
>In this sense I regard the Rachmaninoff recording as something of a
>curse on this piece, as it sanctions wholesale cuts in the score -
>curious that Pletnev didn't follow them all, if he was so keen on
>following Rachmaninoff's example! - which leads pianists of limited
>musical intelligence to follow his example.
What makes you think that Pletnev was keen on following Rachmaninov's example?
His recording, in fact, proves just the opposite, and you have now arrived (as
usual) at the very opposite point from which you began if you look at the
initial basis for your criticism of Pletnev. The fact is that the composer
himself, as you admit, sanctioned cuts. So your personal preference is just
that, and you have no basis on which to sanction any other artist for making
some or all of those cuts other than your personal preference.
>
>Horowitz, not the smartest pianist in the world, ended up by seeing
>the light and restoring the concerto to its full, luxuriant glory.
>
But was it his best performance? And why should what Horowitz did matter with
respect to what Pletnev does, particularly when Rachmaninov himself did
otherwise?
Dave Hurwitz
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> And you can safely assume that I have more than a passing knowledge of
>> this score as well.
>
>Fine.
>
>|I will be delighted to read your thorough analysis and follow Volodos'
>|recordings with the score in hand and your comments in mind.
>
>Here is your tune. Chime in.
>
>And another one:
>
>|In what sense? Would you care to get a little more specific, in particular,
>|would you care to take my comments with regards to the cadenza and point
>|out to me in detail, what it is that makes Pletnev such an obvious cut
>|above Volodos?
>
>I am eagerly awaiting your analysis, honestly.
>
>Peter Lemken
>Berlin
When I screw up the courage to listen to Volodos' Rachmaninoff 3 again
- the last time I almost threw something at the player - I will give
you chapter and verse.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
I don't believe I said anything about Bach on the piano. But of course
that is quite fine with me.
Styles change, scores change - some rather dramatically - and so do
practises. Certainly nobody would dare to do with Kreisleriana what
Hofmann did with it and we can all be very grateful for that, I would
say. Modern practise demands the complete Kreisleriana. Kinderszenen
is another matter, and things like Traumerei have become encore
pieces, notably by Horowitz. Much depends upon the work. There are no
hard and fast rules, but I do believe that it is more than a little
shocking to have 8 bars cut from a concerto which lasts 40 minutes!!!
Why bother.
In the instance I now have word from Pletnev's producer, Christian
Gansch, who is in Moscow with Pletnev as we speak conducting - yes he
is also a conductor - the RNO in Rachmaninoff 2.
According to Gansch, Pletnev simply thought the cut made musical
sense. So be it. No more details. I simply put my 2 cents worth in to
both of them that I believe it is a musical mistake and also a
commercial drawback for the recording. Gansch should have insisted, or
Rostropovich or both of them.
As I say, a pity that it was not done.
TD
David Hurwitz
>hard and fast rules, but I do believe that it is more than a little
>shocking to have 8 bars cut from a concerto which lasts 40 minutes!!!
>
What you believe is irrelevant; you assert that cutting 8 bars is a "BAD THING"
but you offer no musical reason why this should be so. And that's the bottom
line; you contradict yourself with virtually every breath you take, Tom, not
that there's anything new here. But if there are no "hard and fast rules," then
on what basis can you assert that "modern practice demands" a performance of
this PARTICULAR work without cuts, given that fact that modern performances
still play it WITH cuts--even if fewer do it now than in days gone by--that the
composer himself sanctioned cuts, and that the work itself is not damaged in any
serious way (and indeed may even be improved) with a cut or two when viewed in
context of the performance as a whole?
What is it that you cannot accept about a piece of music in which the composer
has left the interpreter with the same options with respect to certain open
issues of form and structure as he does with tempos, dynamics, phrasing, and
other musical interpretive criteria? That's all that we are talking about here;
the score is more than what is printed on the page, Tom. It is the sum total of
the composer's intentions with respect to the work at hand, to the extent that
we can determine them. And the only FACT at hand is that Rachmaninov by his own
example was NOT of the opinion that the work must always be played without cuts.
It is therefore perfectly legitimate for each interpreter to arrive at his own
solution to the interpretive problems that he left to future generations. You
may dislike the fact that Rachmaninov left these issues open, but there is no
question that they ARE open and no question that anyone approaching the piece
has not only the right but the obligation to look at these issues and make
decisions based on their personal understanding of what the composer wanted and
how the music sounds best.
Dave Hurwitz
Floyd Patterson
recording. What am I missing here?
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5gl5qvcg6319k3cn6...@4ax.com...
Mazzolata
I would go a step further and say thaat it is legitimate _irrespective_
of the composer's intentions. Music is a performance art, and like all
performance arts, the art is in the interpretation, which is a
collaboration between the author and the performer.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Got to get behind the mule
in the morning and plow
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
As you like.
It is still stupid!
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Lovely philosophy.
But this simply declares the score the composer wrote as a modest form
of sign language, which can be altered to suit the tastes, or limits,
of any performer.
As you like.
But I don't.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
<flo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>I don't understand...he cuts the music 8 bars and you damn the entire
>recording. What am I missing here?
I didn't "damn the entire recording". I love Pletnev.
It is simply a very silly and frivolous decision to excise 8 bars from
a concerto which lasts 40 minutes.
Why not take one of the gargoyles off Notre Dame? There are lots more
there, of course. One more or less won't make any difference, will it?
Well, yes, as a matter of fact. It will.
TD
Joseph Vitale
news:c516qv45clarfg7c9...@4ax.com:
> Why not take one of the gargoyles off Notre Dame? There are lots more
> there, of course. One more or less won't make any difference, will it?
> Well, yes, as a matter of fact. It will.
Good point Tom. But I still wouldn't mind having the Venus de Milo standing
in my foyer:-)
Now can somebody please explain to a dilettante like me why an artist like
Pletnev would choose to snip eight bars from the Rach Third? Is it really
too difficult to bring off? Or is it an aesthetical issue?
JV
Dan Koren
news:d416qvkjk8uc2ufci...@4ax.com...
> On 31 Oct 2003 14:42:27 -0800, David Hurwitz
> <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> > It is therefore perfectly legitimate for each
> > interpreter to arrive at his own solution to
> > the interpretive problems that he left to future
> > ninov left these issues open, but there is no
> > question that they ARE open and no question that
> > anyone approaching the piece has not only the
> > right but the obligation to look at these issues
> > standing of what the composer wanted and how the
> > music sounds best.
>
>
> It is still stupid!
>
But you have not proposed any better solution. In
fact, you have not proposed any solution at all.
dk
Dan Koren
Dan Koren
"Joseph Vitale" <jvi...@uic.edu> wrote in message
news:Xns9425C8C1C17...@204.127.204.17...
> deac...@yahoo.com wrote in
> news:c516qv45clarfg7c9...@4ax.com:
>
> > Why not take one of the gargoyles off Notre Dame?
> > There are lots more there, of course. One more or
> > less won't make any difference, will it?
> > Well, yes, as a matter of fact. It will.
>
> Good point Tom. But I still wouldn't mind having the
> Venus de Milo standing in my foyer:-)
>
She's rather cold to the touch.
Or as they say in Yidish -- "kolter tuchas".
dk
David Hurwitz
says...
Spoken like the true intellectual you pretend to be.
Dave Hurwitz
Bob Lombard
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
The right - obligation thing seems to be stated backwards. The
performer-in-potential has an ethical obligation to attempt to figure
out what the composer wanted, because the score-as-performance-plan is
imprecise - and the whole of the composer's concept may be better than
anything the performer-in-potential can produce without such
knowledge. The performer-in-potential has the *right* to come up with
any performance plan that 'turns him on'. The legitimate debate should
be about the interpretive 'line' beyond which the work becomes, for
instance, Rachmaninov-Pletnev piano concerto No. 3.
This sort of interpretive license seems to be common in jazz. What is
the common understanding there?
bl
David Hurwitz
The reason you perceive greater freedom in jazz is simple: the music exists in
"charts" and its details are not written down at all. There is no question that
Rachmaninov's Third IS written down; a better analogy might be comparing the
work with, say, a grand opera in which the composer writes more music than is
strictly necessary understanding that the interpreters may cut or select the
music that suits them best. In this respect, there is little difference between
the question of "cuts" in Rachmaninov's Third than of offering other choices to
the performer, such as which of the two standard cadenzas to play.
The issue here, then, is how much of the formal structure of the work should be
left to the mercy of the interpreter, and while the trend among composers (until
recently at least) was for composer's to assert ever greater control, there are
notable exceptions (the unwritten cadenza to Brahms' Violin Concerto, for
example), and in the case of a composer/virtuoso like Rachmaninov, it is not
surprising that his perogatives as composer and performer might come into
conflict, and that this might express itself in terms of permitting the
interpreter greater freedom than other composers of his era, particularly given
the difficulties of the work and his evident dissatisfaction with some of his
structural solutions.
And let us not forget that even as detailed a composer as Bartok left two
endings to his 2nd Violin Concerto, for example. Cuts were also common in such
works as Tchaikovsky's Violin Concerto and Second Piano Concerto--even his Fifth
Symphony, Manfred Symphony (still cut and rearranged in many modern
performances) and never mind the ballets. It's useful to keep in mind the fact
that the musical tradition from which Rachmaninov came had few qualms about such
things, and so for Pletnev, coming from the same tradition, to take seriously
the issue of the composer's own cuts and to exercise his rights in this regard
is both authentic and wholly appropriate.
Dave Hurwitz
SG
> Now can somebody please explain to a dilettante like me why an artist like
> Pletnev would choose to snip eight bars from the Rach Third?
Why did Rachmaninoff choose to "snip" much more than that? Because the
score, in this case, was not a given, but the testimony of a
composer's struggle between leaving in details which he liked and
obtaining a more compact whole. Granted, the later desideratum hardly
depends upon those eight bars but if the composer himself thought of
taking them off among other shortening decisions, draw your own
conclusions. . . Believe it or not, I like my Rachmaninoff Third
*without* any cut at all -- when well=played, I just don't find it
long, that's just me -- but no great performance was ever compromised
by that little cut as no boring performance would be redeemed by
avoiding it.
> Is it really too difficult to bring off?
No way -- it has nothing to do with that.
> Or is it an aesthetical issue?
I could hardly pretend I read Pletnev's mind. My only guess is that he
found the entire section too static harmonically -- a lot of
embelishing of an E Flat Major cadence, without compositional (rather
than pianistic) variety to write home about. It is always the question
of *what* a performer/composer "excises" (or not). Imagine a pianist
would cut off the first page of Appassionata and start playing it with
the first pp-FF chordal peroration. Idiocy! In the case of the famous
eight bars, what we are talking about is a quasi-improvisation -- a
musical paranthesis, if you will -- around a simple E Flat Major
cadence. The music is *about* the same with it and without it. A
performer who chooses a particular cadenza in Beethoven Fourth
Concerto's first movement actually makes a decision of enormously more
increased relevance as regards the musical whole of that work than the
pianist who decides to cut out or to leave in the Rachmaninoff
snippet.
regards,
SG
Neil
>Pletnev's is such an exceptional piece of interpretive work that I'd
>think it wise *not* to keep stimulating (through *unnecessary* violent
>"debunking") the usual non-sense until the cows come home and after.
Have you heard Sokolov's very significant interpretation - one which sounds
completely unhackneyed and fresh, and has acquired a legendary underground
status.
I'm happy to post MP3/ aac files if anyone is curious.
Neil
Neil
>Be nice! Everyone knows that Tom likes it uncut. He has a right to his, er,
>taste preferences.
Ehem .....that's a bit below the belt.
Henk van Tuijl
"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
news:77661608.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> It's useful to keep in mind the fact
> that the musical tradition from which
> Rachmaninov came had few qualms about
> such things, and so for Pletnev,
> coming from the same tradition, to
> take seriously the issue of the
> composer's own cuts and to exercise
> his rights in this regard
> is both authentic and wholly appropriate.
>
> Dave Hurwitz
Justification of an interpretation by
reference to tradition is an even
weaker argument than reference to the
Urtext.
It was also tradition to edit out or
adapt dangerous or otherwise
unpleasant passages - or exactly the
opposite: to make a composition even
more difficult.
Whether this is acceptable or not
depends on the quality of the end
product - and a pointer like "arr."
or Chopin/John Doe.
In general I prefer to listen to a
creative interpretation - not to
creative editing.
Henk
this>@xs j.winter4all.nl
wrote:
>The right - obligation thing seems to be stated backwards. The
>performer-in-potential has an ethical obligation to attempt to figure
>out what the composer wanted, because the score-as-performance-plan is
>imprecise - and the whole of the composer's concept may be better than
>anything the performer-in-potential can produce without such
>knowledge. The performer-in-potential has the *right* to come up with
>any performance plan that 'turns him on'. The legitimate debate should
>be about the interpretive 'line' beyond which the work becomes, for
>instance, Rachmaninov-Pletnev piano concerto No. 3.
>
>This sort of interpretive license seems to be common in jazz. What is
>the common understanding there?
In jazz there is no Urtext. That prevents a lot of discussion.
--
Jan Winter, Amsterdam
< j.winter<delete this>@xs<delete this>4all.nl >
deac...@yahoo.com
<David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
Intellectual?
Oh, please no. I leave such terms to boring gits like you.
Enjoy!
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Play the score, stupid!
God you are getting thick!
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
Quite right, Henk.
As Toscanini himself remarked: "Tradition is the last bad
performance!"
Mind you, Toscanini was humble enough to respect what the composer
wrote. Others who are less humble - and yet have a great deal to be
humble about, one might add - claim "tradition" as their guide. Or
worse, musical insight.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
><deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:c516qv45clarfg7c9...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 16:11:02 -0700, "Floyd Patterson"
>> <flo...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't understand...he cuts the music 8 bars and
>> > you damn the entire recording. What am I missing
>> > here?
>>
>> I didn't "damn the entire recording". I love Pletnev.
>>
>> It is simply a very silly and frivolous decision to
>> excise 8 bars from a concerto which lasts 40 minutes.
>>
>> Why not take one of the gargoyles off Notre Dame?
>> There are lots more there, of course. One more or
>> less won't make any difference, will it?
>>
>> Well, yes, as a matter of fact. It will.
>
>
>You have unwittingly hit one of the key issues, and
>did not even notice.
>
>The Notre Dame is a *BUILDING*. Architecture. Stone.
>
>*NOTHING* to *INTERPRET*. *NOTHING* to *PERFORM*.
>
>Notre-Dame exists by itself -- as do buildings,
>paintings, sculptures and other material works
>of art. It does not need actors, singers, dancers,
>or other performers to bring it to life.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
You have to LOOK at the Notre Dame. It doesn't exist without people to
see it.
Does a tree falling in the forest make any noise? Not unless there is
someone to hear it?
Interesting philosophical question.
In any event, the comparison is totally appropriate.
Performance is NOT a creative act, it is a recreative act. And its
basis is the score.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
>Joseph Vitale <jvi...@uic.edu>:
>
>> Now can somebody please explain to a dilettante like me why an artist like
>> Pletnev would choose to snip eight bars from the Rach Third?
>
>Why did Rachmaninoff choose to "snip" much more than that? Because the
>score, in this case, was not a given, but the testimony of a
>composer's struggle between leaving in details which he liked and
>obtaining a more compact whole.
I doubt that you can know this with any certainty. Moreover, I have it
on Bolet's word that the composer performed the piece intact in
concert. Only when he came to make his record did he do such things as
to eliminate the first appearance of the second theme in the third
movement! He was extremely modest about his work. Excessively so.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
No, not at all. Below the belt is where Hurwitz dwells. You will find
him on his knees almost every day inspecting cuts of different nature.
You can always tell when he has nothing to add to the discussion by
his descent into details of this kind.
TD
David Hurwitz
>
>
>"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
>news:77661608.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
>> It's useful to keep in mind the fact
>> that the musical tradition from which
>> Rachmaninov came had few qualms about
>> such things, and so for Pletnev,
>> coming from the same tradition, to
>> take seriously the issue of the
>> composer's own cuts and to exercise
>> his rights in this regard
>> is both authentic and wholly appropriate.
>>
>> Dave Hurwitz
>
>Justification of an interpretation by
>reference to tradition is an even
>weaker argument than reference to the
>Urtext.
>
I was not "justifying"--I was explaining. Obviously what matters is the results,
rather than "the tradition," but it is incorrect of Tom to speak of "modern
practice" as though this is uniform everywhere in the world or as though a
couple of record companies set the standard in this regard. The Russian
tradition, whether you like it or not, favors the "nip and tuck" approach.
Svetlanov, Temirkanov, Pletnev, Rozhdestvensky, and others are inveterate
editors of RUSSIAN music. I vividly recall Temirkanov giving an electrifying
performance of Rachmaninov's 2nd Symphony with a finale that lasted about 6
minutes--when he recorded it he played it complete, though far less well.
I too would prefer (at least in the symphony) to hear the whole thing (though
without the exposition repeat in the first movement) in a fabulous performance,
but in the concerto I think a great performance missing 8 not terribly
significant 8 bars is preferable to a dull complete one. The point, either way
and irrespective of my preferences, is that Pletnev is neither violating "the
score," nor "the composer's intentions," nor "the tradition" in going what he
did. This does not "justify" his choice if you think the work should always be
played complete, no questions asked, but it does, I think, provide a reasonable
basis for understanding WHY he did it in the first place, and that was the
question to which I was responding.
Dave Hurwitz
Simon Roberts
says...
>
>As Toscanini himself remarked: "Tradition is the last bad
>performance!"
>
>Mind you, Toscanini was humble enough to respect what the composer
>wrote.
I guess that's why he omitted repeats, completely rewrote timpani parts, etc.,
etc....
Simon
Mazzolata
> Performance is NOT a creative act, it is a recreative act. And its
> basis is the score.
So every performance should be identical ?
Henk van Tuijl
> The point, either way and irrespective of my
> preferences, is that Pletnev is neither
> violating "the score," nor "the composer's
> intentions," nor "the tradition" in going what
> he did.
The unanswered question is why? Following
Tom's information Pletnev just wanted it
that way.
I never did mind Moiseiwitsch leaving out
the opening bars of the last movement of
Chopin's third sonata.
Moiseiwitsch did explain why - and it does
make sense, at least, I can understand why
it made sense to him.
> This does not "justify" his choice if you think
> the work should always be played complete, no
> questions asked, but it does, I think, provide
> a reasonable basis for understanding WHY he did
> it in the first place, and that was the question
> to which I was responding.
The fact that Pletnev is a Russian and
loves to edit the music he performs
explains perhaps why Pletnev edited the
music but not why he left out these eight
bars.
Until I know, the absence of the eight
bars makes as much sense to me as the
absence of the notorious bar in Perahia's
performance of Chopin's Op. 25/11.
It is good to hear from Samir that the
rest of Rachmaninov/Pletnev's third is
excellent.
Henk
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> Performance is NOT a creative act, it is a recreative act. And its
>> basis is the score.
>
>So every performance should be identical ?
Of course not.
There is nothing gained by carrying the point to absurdity. Unless you
just want to make a Koren-quip, that is.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
I am quite astonished that you would think anything Pletnev decided to
play was less than excellent, Henk. He is a first-class pianist.
Which, as you say, begs the question regarding the cut in the 3rd
movement. My original point, which, as usual, has become lost in
defensive comments by those wishing to "defend" Pletnev without even
knowing what his rationale was for making the cut.
TD
Henk van Tuijl
<deac...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
news:mvu7qv4lv3f5rnt9q...@4ax.com...
> I am quite astonished that you would think anything Pletnev decided to
> play was less than excellent, Henk. He is a first-class pianist.
Indeed, Tom, he is a first class pianist.
This does not mean that he is always a
great interpreter.
To name only two examples, I find his
Balakirew to be in the worst possible
taste - and I have serious problems with
his interpretations of Rachmaninov's
Corelli Variations.
Henk
Peter Lemken
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:06:14 +0000, Neil <ne...@thump.org> wrote:
>
> >On 30 Oct 2003 18:45:08 -0800, David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Be nice! Everyone knows that Tom likes it uncut. He has a right to his, er,
> >>taste preferences.
> >
> >Ehem .....that's a bit below the belt.
>
> No, not at all. Below the belt is where Hurwitz dwells.
Weren't you the guy who accused me of having no sense of humour? ;-)
Peter Lemken
Berlin
--
Mail an die im From: angegebene Adresse stellt eine Beauftragung zur
Überprüfung der Mailfunktion des Absenders dar und wird mit einer
Bearbeitungsgebühr von EUR 1000,- in Rechnung gestellt.
Paul Goldstein
>
>
><deac...@yahoo.com> schreef in bericht
>news:mvu7qv4lv3f5rnt9q...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 19:19:07 +0100, "Henk van Tuijl"
>> <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
>> I am quite astonished that you would think anything Pletnev decided to
>> play was less than excellent, Henk. He is a first-class pianist.
>
>Indeed, Tom, he is a first class pianist.
>
>This does not mean that he is always a
>great interpreter.
>To name only two examples, I find his
>Balakirew to be in the worst possible
>taste
Is it possible for Islamey to be in good taste?
Paul Goldstein
Henk van Tuijl
"Paul Goldstein" <pgol...@newsguy.com> schreef in bericht
news:bo0vj...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >This does not mean that he is always a
> >great interpreter.
> >To name only two examples, I find his
> >Balakirew to be in the worst possible
> >taste
>
> Is it possible for Islamey to be in good taste?
>
> Paul Goldstein
<g>
There is quite a margin between "good"
and "worst possible".
I have no problems at all with Arrau's,
Gavrilov's or Katchen's interpretation.
Henk
Neil
>>Ehem .....that's a bit below the belt.
>
>No, not at all. Below the belt is where Hurwitz dwells. You will find
>him on his knees almost every day inspecting cuts of different nature.
Good for him !
Owen Hartnett
<sd...@comcast.net> wrote:
Yes, but he *respected* all those parts he changed! :-)
-Owen
Owen Hartnett
<hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
> I never did mind Moiseiwitsch leaving out
> the opening bars of the last movement of
> Chopin's third sonata.
Personally, when I sit down to play, I leave out everything but the
opening 2 bars of the Chopin third sonata. If I try to play any more,
it sounds bad. People have asked me to omit even the opening two bars,
but I'm steadfast, and if they really ask, I might go a note or two
more, but nothing more than that.
-Owen, graduate summa cum loud-ay of the Victor Borge School of Music.
Mark Stenroos
all-time low in rmcr discourse. The usual personalities are on full
display with their zephyrs of possible insight blown to hell by a
hurricane of personal attacks, deep-seated vitorol and a zealotry (as
opposed to passion) that would make a suicide bomber blush. This
thread makes the posters on rmo (rec.music.opera) look positively
civil and intellectual by comparison.
I understand that we all have our tastes; I understand that we all
become exasperated; I understand that we're all coming from different
perspectives; I understand all of that. But none of that validates the
childish level to which this thread has descended.
Unlike any *real* opinion publication, the internet doesn't come with
an editor. It would be refreshing if some around here could learn to
edit themselves just a smidgen when it comes to the personal attacks.
I certainly am among those who instantly discount an opinion if it
needs to make its point via the politics of personal destruction, no
more so than after wading through a 400-line cut and paste opinion
only to read a 3-word rejoinder that would insult the intelligence of
a 4th grader. There are other better, less-obvious ways, gentlemen, to
get one's point across.
At the end of the day, this thread hasn't enlightened me as to whether
or not I want or need to hear Pletnev's Rach 3 or to avoid it. What it
has done is coloured the unheard recording for me in a way I wish it
hadn't. In that respect, you've all failed to do accomplish (for me,
at least) the goal that inspired all your ranting and name calling.
I hope you do better next time.
Dan Koren
news:77655675.0...@drn.newsguy.com...
> >
> > It is still stupid!
>
>
But you forgot the Deacon is a
true *Canadian* intellectual.
Like Jacques Chretien.
dk
Steve Emerson
markst...@yahoo.com (Mark Stenroos) wrote:
> At the end of the day, this thread hasn't enlightened me as to whether
> or not I want or need to hear Pletnev's Rach 3 or to avoid it. What it
> has done is coloured the unheard recording for me in a way I wish it
> hadn't. In that respect, you've all failed to do accomplish (for me,
> at least) the goal that inspired all your ranting and name calling.
I agree with your general point, but the above is not fair to Samir's original
post, which is thorough, well considered, articulate; and bespeaks a fair
amount of actual work on his part.
SE.
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Well, now that you mention it!
Wanda was so dismissive of this piece that she refused to allow
Horowitz's reading from the 1940s to be released by RCA Victor. I have
a copy of the performance, and indeed, Horowitz seemed to agree with
you, Paul, and played it in precisely that fashion.
Hence Wanda's discomfort, I would imagine.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>deac...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 Nov 2003 09:06:14 +0000, Neil <ne...@thump.org> wrote:
>>
>> >On 30 Oct 2003 18:45:08 -0800, David Hurwitz <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Be nice! Everyone knows that Tom likes it uncut. He has a right to his, er,
>> >>taste preferences.
>> >
>> >Ehem .....that's a bit below the belt.
>>
>> No, not at all. Below the belt is where Hurwitz dwells.
>
>Weren't you the guy who accused me of having no sense of humour? ;-)
>
>Peter Lemken
>Berlin
If you find that comment humorous, I would presume so, in fact.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You have made a very wise decision.
And you are completely free to do so, of course, and even remain
within the framework of artistic freedom of expression.
Personally, I have always suggested leaving out the final movement of
Beethoven 9, but conductors continue to programme that damned Ode to
Joy! I leave after the slow movement; from then on it's downhill all
the way.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
But Mark. Surely you have misread the intentions of this forum of
opinion. It is not to inspire you to listen to music, but rather to
dazzle you with the brilliance of one's wit, the viciousness of the
personal slurs, the brevity of the barbs.
If you want to be inspired, listen to the music and form your own
opinions, something I am sure you do anyway.
Golescu's original evaluation of this performance was fine, until Mr.
Koren chimed in that it was COMPLETELY fabulous, or some such word. At
which point, I took exception to the use of the word "complete", and
then the attacks began in earnest.
Pletnev's performance needs no defense from myself, or Golescu, or
Koren or anyone. It stands on its own.
It also, as it happens, stands somewhat alone today in representing
all but 8 bars of Rachmaninoff's score, like it or not.
So, my suggestion is that you forget the personal attacks, forget all
the posturing, forget all the barbs and one-line witticisms, which
count for just about zero, and just listen to Pletnev play this piece.
Personally I think you will be enthralled, as I was.
Until, that is, he cut those 8 fucking bars. At which point I used
many unmentionable words.
Let's see what happens to you.
TD
deac...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>"David Hurwitz" <David_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
The name is Jean. And incidentally, he is definitely NOT a moron!
TD
Henk van Tuijl
"Owen Hartnett" <ow...@xids.xnet> schreef in bericht
news:011120031528501125%ow...@xids.xnet...
> In article <3fa3f913$0$58703$e4fe...@news.xs4all.nl>, Henk van Tuijl
> <hvt...@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> > I never did mind Moiseiwitsch leaving out
> > the opening bars of the last movement of
> > Chopin's third sonata.
>
> Personally, when I sit down to play, I leave out everything but the
> opening 2 bars of the Chopin third sonata. If I try to play any more,
> it sounds bad. People have asked me to omit even the opening two bars,
> but I'm steadfast, and if they really ask, I might go a note or two
> more, but nothing more than that.
Your two bars are worth a complete sonata
by Rubinstein.
As the saying goes, true quality does not
need quantity.
Victor Borge also knew this. He played two
complete concerto's in five bars.
Henk
Dan Koren
news:9b05210b.0311...@posting.google.com...
>
> At the end of the day, this thread hasn't enlightened
> me as to whether or not I want or need to hear Pletnev's
> Rach 3 or to avoid it.
How so? Isn't it obvious that a performance that can
cause as much debate as this one is a *MUST* *HEAR*?
(note that I didn't say "must buy" or "must own").
Otherwise, how is one ever going to find out?
> What it has done is coloured the unheard recording
> for me in a way I wish it hadn't.
And in what way? How could our collective banter
possibly color the sound of Pletnev's piano?
> In that respect, you've all failed to do accomplish
We're not here merely to serve -- you know.
> (for me, at least) the goal that inspired all your
> ranting and name calling.
First, note that there was no ranting or name calling
until His Ass-Holiness the Deacon entered the fray.
The discussion started to turn sour only after he
damned Pletnev's interpretation for missing 8 bars.
Second, this ng has no manifest goal or purpose other
than to have some fun together. Granted, one's person
notion of fun could be very different from another's
-- but such is life.
Third, if you prefer to see more Mother Teresa like
behavior, you could start your very own newsgroup
-- alt.music.classical.recordings.mother.teresa.
> I hope you do better next time.
I honestly hope we do "worse".
dk
Dan Koren
<deac...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cvb8qvsof5loq2qnh...@4ax.com...
>
>
> But Mark. Surely you have misread the intentions of
> this forum of opinion. It is not to inspire you to
> listen to music, but rather to dazzle you with the
> brilliance of one's wit, the viciousness of the
> personal slurs, the brevity of the barbs.
>
> If you want to be inspired, listen to the music and
> form your own opinions, something I am sure you do
> anyway.
>
> Golescu's original evaluation of this performance was
> fine, until Mr. Koren chimed in that it was COMPLETELY
> fabulous, or some such word. At which point, I took
> exception to the use of the word "complete", and then
> the attacks began in earnest.
I never used the word "COMPLETE". The record is available
for anyone to see. You're making this up.
>
> Pletnev's performance needs no defense from myself, or
> Golescu, or Koren or anyone. It stands on its own.
Even without the 8 missing bars ?!? My, my!
Such a change of opinion in only two days?
Or should we call it a hasty retreat?
> It also, as it happens, stands somewhat alone today in
> representing all but 8 bars of Rachmaninoff's score,
> like it or not.
>
> So, my suggestion is that you forget the personal attacks,
> forget all the posturing,
Good advice, especially coming from the King of Posturing!
> forget all the barbs and one-line witticisms, which
> count for just about zero, and just listen to Pletnev
> play this piece.
Wasn't this obvious even without your advice, Deacon?
> Personally I think you will be enthralled, as I was.
>
> Until, that is, he cut those 8 fucking bars. At which
> point I used many unmentionable words.
Maybe you should charge him interest.
dk